spotatl

Of course the question depends "at what cost?". I don't think there is any chance that Rubio comes over next season- he wouldn't want to deal with the lockout and if he waits an extra season then he isn't bound by his rookie scale contract.

Are you Serious? PROFESSIONAL scouts and coaches make mistakes all the time. Thabeet was the second pick in the draft- I have no problem questioning the PROFESSIONALS who picked him there.

If Joe cared more about winning than money then he wouldn't have resigned with the Hawks. Somehow I don't think you would be praising his selflessness if he took less to play for a better team.

AHF- how the right to set off works is that the team gets a rebate of 50% of the new contract (above the minimum) refunded to them. So the player does get incentive to sign for a bigger contract but the old team gets some money back. So If the player had a 10 million dollar contract bought out and signed for 6 million a year. The player would then get $13 million ($10 from the old contract plus $3 million from the new one) while the old team would get $3 million back.

My rule changes are based on giving teams flexibility to solve their problems. Letting a team buy out a contract would absolutely help teams with more resources- but it would also have let the Bucks get out of Michael Redd's contract while it was covered by insurance. (my idea would be that a player would have to be on your team for at least 1 full calendar year to use that provision) I just think its tough when teams know they made a mistake on a contract and it locks up their cap for several seasons. To me the Player absolutely has to get what they are owed but I'd like to see a team be able to clear them off of their cap and move on. They would still get the right to set off so they would get a portion of their money back if that player signed a new deal. As far as signing bonuses go- thats what the NFL uses to give players incentive to take a non-guaranteed year. Basically a non-guaranteed year is a team option. Players need incentive to give team options... without a signing bonus what other reason is there? I get why the NBA limited the size of a signing bonus but to me it simply takes away a took that would be useful for a smart team.

AHF- the 2 vs 3 year thing is how long a contract must be if another team offered a RFA an offersheet. That has nothing to do with what players would be restricted free agents. The rest of it is the Arenas rule. The Arenas rule would have helped the Cavs with boozer.

AHF- maybe from a fan's perspective a league without any free agency is better but I do think that players should be able to live in the city where they want to. They shoudl be able to play for the organization that they want to. I think the league gets it pretty much right with the draft- after 4 seasons the player has to pick between the team that drafted them or taking a 1 year contract to hit unrestricted free agency. If they want out badly enough and their current team refuses to trade them then they can take a 1 year contract and go where ever they like. But for the most part players take the long term security and sign the extension. For teams making the best offer they are allowed to make I do think it should give the team some more leverage. But I also think that the player should have a light at the end of the tunnel if he truly wants out.

The benefit for the PLAYER is that they get the extra year. The benefit for the team would be the thigns you listed. But when a team has the caproom to sign a player outright then the extra year is only leverage the current team has. Basically if no sign and trade is worked out then the only option the player has is to say that they would be willing to take the 5 year contract to sign outright which is a pretty big threat. Under my system then Lebron would have had the choice of the 6 year 120 million dollar contract with the Cavs, a S&T to the Heat under the terms the Cavs agreed to, Or taking a 1 year 19 million dollar deal with Cleveland to become a free agent.

AHF- writers get CBA stuff wrong all the time. All players in their first 3 seasons in the league are restricted free agents except for first round picks who had their team options declined. It was a common misconception at the time.

I had a long post written about the things I wanted to see but evidently I never hit send or wasn't logged when I typed it. The major thing I want to see is an escalating luxury tax based on how many years a team has been a tax payer. The current tax is 100%. You pay a dollar for every dollar over the tax you are. I'd say that under my new system the first season you are over the tax it wouldn't be painful. Maybe a 50% tax. That way if a team had a big salary they were waiting to clear off of the books that it wouldn't be too painful to pay the tax one season waiting for the player to come off. But if the team stayed over the tax line the next season it would be a 125% tax. The next season it would be a 175% tax. The next season a 225% tax. Pick the numbers however you want- basically it would let teams extend out their run a couple extra seasons but eventually that team would collapse under its own weight and eventually the team would have to blow it up and shed salary to get back under the tax line. I'd like to see a team once every 3 seasons be able to buy out a player and have him completely come off of the team's cap. (the player still gets the money owed to him though) I'd like to see the rules on signing bonuses be relaxed. Currently players would be stupid to sign an non-guaranteed contract but if he were given a big enough signing bonus then maybe he would. It would give smart teams more flexibility. My personal pet peeve is that teams can give non-guaranteed qualifying offers to retain the rights of some players. To me if you want to keep a players rights so they can't go to a different team then you should have to guarantee their contract for the season. Otherwise they shoudl be free to sign with the team they think gives them the best chance to stick.

No- thats not correct either. Boozer would have been a restricted free agent because he was still in his first 3 seasons in the league. The only players in their first 3 seasons in the league who are unrestricted free agents are first round picks that had their third or fourth season team options declined. Boozer was totally screwed. The cavs had him locked in for a third season at an absurdly low rate for his production and then after that he was still going to be only a restricted free agent. The cavs had all the cards- they let him out of his contract because he told the cavs he would resign and then completely backstabbed them.

Actually AHF- you have this wrong. Cleveland absolutely could have kept Boozer for one more season and then had full bird rights on him and could have maxed him out if they wanted to when Boozer was a restricted free agent. Boozer was totally screwed in this deal because he wanted a real contract. Boozer BEGGED the cavs to decline his team option so he could sign for the MLE with them then completely backstabbed them.

dlpin- bird rights matter for the extra year but the difference between threatening to take 1 year contract vs a 5 year contract is trivial compared to the difference between taking a 5 year contract vs a 6 year contract. If the Nuggets had the threat of keeping Carmelo an extra year then the negotiations would have been completely different. Lebron was forced to stay with their team for 5 seasons in order to become a free agent when they were drafted. They choose to extend once because the idea of playing for a 1 year contract was so unappealing. I'd like to put the same sitaution in for the NBA. I do think it would give players the option to force themselves out if they wanted to badly enough while still giving their current teams a little more leverage. And thats all I am looking for with a franchise tag- a little more leverage for their current teams.

Personally I'd support a franchise tag that would give a team like Denver or Cleveland leverage for 1 extra season. But if the PLayer really were willing to take a 1 year contract for say 10% more than the max contract then they should be an UFA the following season. SImilar to how it works when players come off of the rookie scale contracts- players will only do that if they BADLY want out of a situation. But lets say a player is stuck on the Clippers for an owner he hates- there should be a way for him to move on at some point if he wants out.

You really don't remember the situation. Boozer was locked into an exceptionally team friendly contract and if the Cavs wanted to put the screws to him they had all the power. They could have made him play another season at barely more than the minimum and then he would have been a restricted free agent at the end. Boozer and his agent went to the Cavs and said that if they declined the team option that Boozer would gladly sign a long term deal for the mid level exception (techincally early bird rights) because the cavs would be doing them such a favor. Boozer then completely stuck the cavs in the back as they declined the team option and he signed with another team that the Cavs were not able to match because they didn't have the caproom to exceed the early bird offer. The Cavs were trying to do Boozer a favor and he completely screwed them.

Pretty Surprised... I figured Murphy was going to end up being an absolutely lethal center for the Heat.

Teague has not looked good in the 4th.

Usually the home court advantage is considered to be around 2.5-3 points in the NBA. maybe in Denver on a back to back that would be 4 points. I've had a very profitable season betting on the NBA this season. (15-3-1) This was just an unexpected line to me. I haven't decided whether I am going to put money on this but I'm awfully tempted.

Wow.... I can't believe he gave up his entire salary for next season with the uncertainty of the next CBA. I have to give him credit- playing in the playoffs was worth 6 million dollars to him. I never thought in a million years that he would have given up that much money. That trade looks really sweet for the Wizards now.

Gotta say I'm pretty shocked that the Nuggets are 6 point favorites in this one.

OR the Hawks could offer Murphy some of their unused MLE money to trump the offer from the Heat.

hahaha. I have to admit that the reputation points crack me up.

Ok. Twitter finally came up. It says that Bibby will ask for a buyout. THat doesn't mean anything. OF course he would love for the Wizards to pay him and he can go play on a playoff contender. The question is how many much of his 6.5 million dollar contract for next season he would be willing to give up in order to play in the playoffs this season.

Twitter isn't coming up but I'd be SHOCKED if Bibby got bought out with the lockout coming. Players don't get paid during a lockout but if he were bought out he wouldn't give any money back. Likewise if there was a salary rollback he wouldn't have to give any money back. It just doesn't make sense to buy out anyone with an extra year on their deal.

Once again - the superstars aren't the problem... I do think the ASG are smart enough to know that brining in a true superstar woudl pay for itself. Ironically for the Hawks to get Howard it would mean that they would shed a ton of salary in order to have the space to resign him so the people who want to see the Hawks pay the luxury tax are barking up the wrong tree.